Feast of St. John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Today is the Feast of St. John Maximovitch and also my name day.

TROPARION, TONE 6
"Glorious apostle to an age of coldness and unbelief, invested with the grace-filled power of the saints of old, divinely-illumined seer of heavenly mysteries, , feeder of orphans, hope of the hopeless, thou didst enkindle on earth the fire of love for Christ upon the dark eve of the day of judgment; pray now that this sacred flame may also rise from our hearts."

Marriage Discipline: East & West

There is a remarkable two part essay authored by the recently reposed Archbishop Elias Zoghby of the Melkite Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) that has been posted by Wei-Hsien Wan over at his blog "Torn Notebook." In this essay* the archbishop makes a strong case for the Eastern tradition of tolerance in the name of economy for the innocent victims of failed marriages with respect to second marriages. Since the difference in the discipline of the Eastern Churches as opposed to that of the Roman Church on the subject of second marriages is often cited as a major point of contention between East & West this essay is especially helpful and insightful. It is also all the more so coming from an Eastern hierarch in communion with the Pope of Rome. As he himself noted with sadness; most of the uniate Eastern Churches have abandoned the patristic discipline of the East in favor of that of the Latin Church.

I strongly recommend this essay which can be found here (part I) and here (part II). Out of respect for the poster of the essay I ask that any comments be made on his website.

A very big hat tip to Eirenikon for posting the link to this excellent essay.

* I believe that the essay was first presented at least in part, to the Second Vatican Council.

Trad Catholics & Orthodoxy

From time to time I get comments or questions concerning so called Traditionalist Roman Catholics and their feeling towards Orthodoxy. The general thrust is usually one of "we can talk with these people, they speak our language." My response is normally skeptical. Not because I disagree with their attachment to the ancient liturgy of the Western Church. I commend it strongly. Nor because I think they are evil people (although there are some whose moral compass is dangerously out of wack, but we have groups like that too). Indeed I used to be an SSPXer for the better part of two decades (mea culpa mea culpa...).

My reason for skepticism is because way too many of the Trads are hard core Unam Sanctum types. Their respect for Orthodoxy is limited to a grudging nod to our liturgy and that's about as far as it goes. Many, perhaps a majority, harbor a hostility towards Orthodoxy that is on par with or even greater than that which they harbor towards Protestants because they see us as being so close and they are infuriated by our obstinate refusal to kneel and kiss the Pope's ring.

Case in point: One of the web sites I periodically check out is Rorate Caeli. This is a solidly Trad web site which often gets really good scoops on news from Rome. You can get some remarkable insights into the various elements of the often sharply divided Trad movement by reading the com boxes there. From time to time the site owner will post a story that touches on Orthodoxy and this generally elicits some pretty frank expressions of their true feeling towards us. These comments make James Likoudis and Diane (well known to Orthodox and Catholic bloggers alike) appear the very embodiment of ecumenical moderation. In witness I will post two comments in their entirety in response to the most recent post by the site owner. The post was from a newspaper interview with Patriarch +Alexeii of Moscow in which +Alexeii spoke of Pope +Benedict XVI in highly complimentary terms.

Anonymous said...

Man...some of you folks are just plain mean spirited...nasty!

Peter has spoken the cause is finished...

For the crime of schism is worse than that which they commit who have offered sacrifice, who, nevertheless, have been disposed to penance for their sins prayed to God with the fullest satisfaction; in the other the Church is opposed. So in this case he who has fallen, has injured only himself; in the other, who attempts to cause a schism deceives many by dragging them with himself. In this case there is the loss of one soul; in the other their is danger to many. Certainly the one knows he has sinned and laments and bewails it; the other puffed up with pride in his sin is pluming himself on the sins themselves, separates sons from their mother, seduces sheep from their shepherds, disturbs the sacraments of God, and, whereas the former having stumbled sinned once, the latter sins daily. Lastly although the lapsed, if afterwards he acquired martyrdom, is able to secure the promises of the kingdom; if the other is slain outside of the Church, he cannot attain to the rewards of the Church.

-Pope Pelagius II c. 585 in a letter to the schismatic bishops of Istria regarding the necessity of union with the Church.

Nasty? I think not! The last time I checked the Patriarch of Moscow was not in union with Rome. We should ignore him. Why should Catholics need the "support" of a schismatic whose "tradition" of willful separation from the unity of the Church jeopardizes his everlasting salvation?

j hughes dunphy said...

The Council of Florence taught infallibly, "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics (protestants), and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels,' (Mat. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his alms giving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Part of the "apostasy" that the Catholic Church is going through currently stems from the undermining of this infallible and unchangeable teaching of the Church.

Fr Pavone, you hinder the "salvation of souls" when you declare publicly that ecumenism is good and that Protestants are "real Christians". There is no "real" Church outside of the Catholic Church. All other so-called Christian churches are "false churches" under Satan. If you are going to talk about protestants, it would be more beneficial to the salvation of their souls and to the salvation of dissident Catholics to warn them that they must convert to or revert back to the Catholic Church for salvation before their time on earth is up.

This sort of vitriol is hardly unusual when Orthodoxy pops up as a topic of conversation over there. And it is why I remain profoundly skeptical when Orthodox think of Roman Catholic Traditionalists as a possible bridge to improved relations with Rome. They are really Rome's Old Calendarists. Sadly most of them didn't even recognize the humor when I once suggested their sede vecantists should do lunch with our Radical Old Calendarists, they have so much in common.

My general view is that we Orthodox should ignore the so called Traditionalists. Their disputes with Rome are fundamentally an internal matter for the Latin Church and there is no justification for sticking our nose into this conflict. With a few rare exceptions Trads are not our friends or simply Western Rite Orthodox who haven't gotten over the Pope yet. While it might be interesting to watch from a distance, we have no dog in this fight.

Staying Put

It is with interest that I note the decision of fellow Orthodox blogger Cathedra Unitatis to remain in The Church. Those familiar with his excellent blog might find his decision somewhat surprising (I did), given his various expressions of sympathy with the Roman Church. Indeed the raison d' etat of his blog was to explore the issues dividing the Latin Church from Orthodoxy (or vice versa depending on one's perspective). And this he has done with remarkable patience and charity. Some of the better Orthodox - Catholic discussions have occurred there. But the tenor of some of his posts and his own commentary lead many of us, I think on both sides of the debate, to expect him to shortly be swimming the Tiber.

In announcing his intentions to remain Orthodox he observed (perhaps tongue in cheek?) that it might be somewhat dismaying to both his Catholic and Orthodox readers. While I concede my surprise; I feel no dismay. Indeed as one who struggled with the choice between Rome and Orthodoxy for decades before reaching a decision, I sympathize with CU. Those who have never carried the burden of doubt can not know its weight on the soul. I do not know if CU has made the right decision or not. I am content to leave that to God. Others, as evidenced by a handful of less than irenic comments posted in response to his announcement, apparently entertain no doubts. I found their lack of charity somewhat sad though not terribly surprising. Most of the sharply negative comments were from a single individual with a well established and unfortunate reputation among both Orthodox bloggers and her fellow Catholics.

Beyond those handful of unpleasant comments though, this is a post that is well worth reading along with the comments. I particularly refer the reader to a magnificent comment posted by a Fr. Paul (I presume a Roman Catholic) which I found abundant in both charity and reason. Would that there were more people like that on both sides of the often heated discussions between East and West.

On the subject of those discussions I am also pleased to report that CU plans to keep up his blog. I look forward to reading many more interesting posts there.

Why are you not Orthodox?

This very intriguing question was posed by Fr. John Fenton of Holy Incarnation Antiochian Orthodox Church (Western Rite). I refer the reader to the post and the numerous comments it has attracted.

Comments Off

On Ecumenical Councils

39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.

From the final document of the Orthodox-Catholic theological discussions held at Ravenna. I think the above reference to the impossibility of holding true ecumenical councils could be (heavy emphasis) a very significant phrase. It might open a whole bunch of doors which I (and most Orthodox and Roman Catholics) have long presumed shut. Where will this go? No where right away. But let's see what happens in the future. Maybe this was what is sometimes called a trial balloon to gauge reaction. If so it would probably get a warm reception from the East. Then again it is entirely possible that I am reading way too much into this. Thoughts?

A big hat tip to Cathedra Unitas for posting the entire document and Wei Hsien for catching the interesting choice of wording noted above. Please comment over at CU.

The Pope's Revolution

Two and a half years after the name "Josephum" came booming down from the balcony of St Peter's, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.

The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.

The liberal cardinals don't like the sound of it at all.

Read the rest here.

Georgia Patriarch a Voice for Calm

Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II

TBILISI, Georgia, Nov. 14 — When Georgia’s short democratic experiment seemed near collapse last week amid a commotion of flying tear gas canisters, rocks and rubber bullets, the nation’s leaders, their opponents, and the Georgian people looked to Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II, head of Georgia’s Orthodox Church.

The patriarch addressed the nation on television, calling for an end to the violence and opening the churches as a refuge. And when the violence subsided, he offered his services as mediator between the government and the opposition.

“If there is anything in this country that can be a guarantor of security, it is the patriarch,” Tina Khidasheli, of the opposition Republican Party, said in an interview days after a government-imposed state of emergency shut down independent media and curtailed political rights. “No one else has any authority anymore.”

As leader of a near 2,000-year-old religious tradition, the patriarch has been a unifying force through 30 years of political turmoil, poverty and war, even as one revolution after another, peaceful or otherwise, has toppled the nation’s political leaders.

Read the rest here.

Ecumenical Sand Castles

Over at the excellent Sacramentum Vitae Mike Liccione has posted his thoughts on recent developments in the world of ecumenism. His report on the developments with the TAC was very interesting (and not terribly surprising). I wish them luck in their efforts since Rome is a vast improvement over being a splinter sect of the fast disintegrating Anglican Communion. However that is not the subject of tonight’s post. I wish to address very briefly Mike's suggestion of a compromise that he feels might help us Orthodox get around Vatican I. Those who have read some of my earlier posts know that I generally see the decrees of that council as quite likely the single greatest obstacle to eventual restoration of communion.

Before proceeding let me begin by noting that I abhor the schism dividing the Latin Church from Orthodoxy. It is an open wound in Christendom that has been aggravated by all too often petty and self interested parties on both sides of the great chasm. And I have no patience for knee jerk anti-Catholics who seem too often more possessed of small minded prejudice than Christian agape. But my great concern is that any restoration of communion be based on a mutual understanding of Truth in the great issues which have separated us. Anything less than that is like trying to build a castle out of sand. It may look pretty, but what is its life expectancy when the tide comes in?

Now let me present Mike's views and idea in his own words.

"...But there is hope nonetheless, and action motivated by such hope. Constantinople and Athens remain closely involved in the current panel discussions. My optimism about the Orthodox stems from the fact that they have held no council, of a kind even they would consider ecumenical, committing Orthodoxy dogmatically to rejecting the Roman communion as one of true, particular churches. There seem to be many Orthodox who take the view that "we know where the Church is, but we don't know where she isn't." Not all Orthodox take the view of the Athonites that popery is a diabolical scourge of Christendom and that Rome doesn't even have a canonical bishop. That actually allows many Orthodox to consider the Latin Church a church with true sacraments, even if she's gone off the rails somewhat about doctrine. Imagine that. But what, realistically, could talks on primacy yield?

Taking their cue from the generation-old Ratzinger proposal made in his book Principles of Catholic Theology, some Eastern Catholics seem to take the view that Vatican I's decrees about papal authority would hold only in the West, not in the East, within a reunited Church. That's a non-starter. If the pope is what Vatican I says he is, then he is that in the East as well as the West. The Orthodox should not expect Rome to retract anything she considers dogma any more than Rome should, or does, expect the Orthodox to retract anything they consider dogma. The real room for compromise is on the level of the exercise of jurisdiction. And that's where theology can help.

The compromise might look like this: to end the schism, the Orthodox patriarchs would defer to Rome on matters not resolved otherwise, and Rome would confine her interventions in those patriarchates to matters not resolved otherwise. The theoretical basis for such an arrangement exists in nuce in the work of Ratzinger on communio and of Zizioulas on eucharistic ecclesiology. I for one believe this is how one aspect of the Ratzinger proposal can be worked out: the one where he says that Rome can require no more of the East than was "held in common during the first millennium." To be sure, views about what was thus held in common diverge, and often diverge sharply. Getting agreement on the point will require consensus about what general form the development of doctrine may take. I think that's where the hard work remains to be done. But it's far from hopeless. I've encountered a good number of Orthodox authors who, while averse to the phrase "development of doctrine" as smacking of addition to the faith-once-delivered, admit what amounts to development in a sense not irreconcilably different from what Newman and Vatican II meant."

First let me restate that I think many Catholics put way too much stock in the lack of a council anathematizing any of the various dogmas of the Latin Church. Councils are not generally held to discuss something which is not controversial. And the decrees of Vatican I relating to Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction are simply not controversial over on our side of the fence. That’s not to say that we accept them. Rather it’s to say that we are more or less of one mind on the subject. And since we can’t even agree on what day it is, that’s pretty impressive. In the minds of even the most ecumenically minded Orthodox, the decrees of Vatican I are heretical (though many are too polite to say it). Those few who don't see it as heresy either have swum the Tiber or they probably should as a matter of personal honesty.

Having said all this, Mike’s suggestion for getting around the problem of Universal Jurisdiction is an interesting one. But it has a fairly major flaw. This compromise lasts only for as long as Rome chooses to adhere to it. In other words it is a compromise of choice for Rome not of obligation. The decrees of Vatican I remain fully in place. The lack of papal intervention in the Churches of the East is based on restraint, not a lack of authority. And the Pope could at any time choose to set aside that compromise if he deemed it proper to do so. Living under an absolute monarch who chooses to exercise restraint in the use of his powers is not the same thing as having rights which he is bound to respect. However benevolent or restrained the current Pope may be, what guarantee is there for the next, or the one after that?

I am not going to get into all of the theological arguments since that’s a horse that has been beaten to death. But the bottom line is this… If Vatican I is not heresy, we Orthodox have no business doing anything other than kneeling in front of the Pope and kissing his ring. And the Pope has no need or legitimate reason for not exercising his universal jurisdiction throughout The Church. If God gave him the authority it was not done with a view to only using it in the West. And if Vatican I is heresy, then Orthodoxy must never ever under any circumstances compromise with it. Whatever failings I have (and they are legion) I am not a relativist. Any attempted compromise in a matter of Truth is a recipe for disaster. It is the foundation for another Florence. As Owen the Ochlophobist once observed in one of his more memorable quotes (I paraphrase) 'In order for communion between Rome and Orthodoxy to be restored, one or the other must cease to exist.' Either Rome is right or we are.

Those are not comfortable words. But there it is.

An Orthodox Europe?

+Alexei II Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

From a fascinating article over at Yahoo (originally published by the Christian Science Monitor)...

For decades, many social scientists had pretty much two things to say about Eastern Orthodox Christianity: 1) that like all religions, it was disappearing with the advance of modern civilization; 2) that it derived most of its support from the reactionary tides of authoritarianism and nationalism.

Those pronouncements are being proved wrong. Today, as in the parable of the prodigal son, throughout Eastern Europe people are returning to the Orthodox Church in droves, and the effect in the public sphere, contrary to most expectations, is quite benign.

Though historically viewed with suspicion by Catholic and Protestant Europe, Orthodox Christianity can actually help bridge the Russia-West gap.

At the heart of much of the miscommunication between Russia and Europe today lies the unacknowledged and untapped longing of Orthodox Christians to be recognized as part of a common European cultural family again. The latest effort to bridge this divide was Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexei II's remarks in France, where he spoke poignantly of how the Christian identity Europeans historically share should promote dialogue on issues like human rights and peace, even with atheists and members of other faiths...

...Western suspicion of Eastern Orthodoxy can be traced back to before the Great Schism that divided the Christian Church in 1054. One hundred and fifty years later, it fueled the Crusaders' zeal for the sacking of Constantinople. In the 18th century, it became a main theme of Edward Gibbon's influential interpretation of the Roman Empire, which was later echoed in the writings of Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee. And in modern times, Samuel Huntington, among others, has warned direly of the potential for clashes between "Slavic-Orthodox" civilization and the Catholic-Protestant West.

With the exception of Greece, this sad legacy has made Western Europeans notoriously slow to accept countries with large Orthodox populations into pan-European institutions. In the current expansion eastward, however, it is inevitable that the values and mores of European institutions and alliances will be shaped more and more by the traditionalist views of Orthodox Christian believers and less and less by the modern, secularized Protestant assumptions of Western European democracies. Orthodox believers already far outnumber Protestants across Europe, and by some estimates they may eventually even surpass Roman Catholics. If 21st-century Europe ever develops a religious complexion, it will be predominantly Eastern Orthodox.

In the long run, therefore, while the greatest challenge to Europe's cultural and political identity may come from the growth of Islam, its more immediate challenge is how to deal with some 40 million to 140 million Orthodox Christians who, when given a voice in European policymaking, will argue that churches should have a more prominent voice than heretofore in the shaping of social policy.

Read the entire article here.